It is a rush transcript from “The Story with Martha MacCallum,” January 10, 2020. This copy will not be in its last type and could also be up to date.
BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Robert O’Brien this weekend. I guess you that’ll be an attention-grabbing interview. Thanks for inviting us into your property tonight. That is it for this “Particular Report.” Honest, balanced and nonetheless unafraid, “The Story” hosted by Martha MacCallum begins proper now. Martha, I put that Tom Brady aspect on the finish only for you.
MARTHA MACCALLUM, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Thanks, Bret. Thanks. What a reduction. Oh, my goodness. Tom stays in New England. I am staying right here. You keep in New England. How does that work? Thanks, Bret. Good to see you tonight. Completely satisfied weekend, everyone. However earlier than we get to that tonight, the White Home seems to be in full steam forward mode in pursuit of some diplomacy now with Iran, regardless of the makes an attempt by Democrats to place limits on the President’s actions. Good night, everyone. I am Martha MacCallum and that is “The Story.” President Trump giving extra info to Laura Ingraham in regards to the imminence of a tax plan by Qasem Soleimani. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: Did he have massive scale assaults deliberate for different embassies and, if these have been deliberate, why cannot we reveal that to the American individuals? Would not that assist your case?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Laura, I can reveal that I imagine it might have been 4 embassies–
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: In moments, we’ve members of Congress from each side of the aisle, Republican Dan Crenshaw, and Democrat Debbie Dingell. Plus, Nancy Pelosi lastly agreeing to ship the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. Byron York right here on how which will play out. And a “Story” unique this night, with Harvey Weinstein’s legal professional Donna Rotunno, what it’s prefer to be a lady representing the disgraced film mogul, and why she says she believes he’s harmless. However we start tonight with Democrats, together with Elizabeth Warren, saying that the strike on Soleimani have little to do with nationwide safety and every little thing to do with impeachment. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We have identified about this for years. Why not a month in the past? Why not a month from now? One of many questions I raised excellent after this got here out, is does this have something to do with the truth that Donald Trump is correct on the eve of an impeachment listening to?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: Some Democrats blamed President Trump’s determination to kill Soleimani for the crash of the Ukrainian airplane that world officers more and more imagine was taken down by an Iranian missile. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JACKIE SPEIER (D-CA): That is one more instance of collateral injury from the actions which were taken in a provocative method by the President of United States.
REP. TULSI GABBARD (D-HI), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: That is one in every of these penalties of this escalation and this state of struggle that we’re in.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: We start tonight with Republican Congressman Dan Crenshaw from Texas. He is a former Navy SEAL, who’ve served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he sits on the Home Homeland Safety Committee. Congressman, thanks for being right here.
REP. DAN CRENSHAW (R-TX): Thanks for having me.
MACCALLUM: Let me begin – type of go backwards right here with among the factors that we simply made, beginning with Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who says, that is the collateral injury of the state of struggle that we’re in. What do you say to that?
CRENSHAW: That does not imply something. What does she imply by that? In a state of struggle that we’re in. We’re not at struggle with Iran. We’re not. The Democrats know that, however they hold utilizing the straw man argument, like, “do not ship us to struggle.” We’re not going to struggle. This President has no intention of going to struggle. There is not this false alternative between doing nothing and letting ourselves get punched within the face, letting our Americans die, letting our embassies get attacked, and going to full scale struggle? There’s choices in between, like taking out the man who’s accountable for that assault and reestablishing our deterrence. I am so uninterested in these false speaking factors and the sloganeering that’s completely meaningless, and he or she is aware of it. That is what’s so irritating.
MACCALLUM: What about these, although, who say, look, it is actually too quickly to say, what occurs subsequent, what different assaults may occur? And the place we actually are and this entire factor?
CRENSHAW: Sure, that is honest. I imply, we should always by no means be overly optimistic. However with all of the information that we’ve now, it does appear as if we have reestablished deterrence in a reasonably efficient method. We have compelled the Iranians to recalculate. We have drawn very clear pink strains. They’re now not escalating quickly in violence. I noticed that clip from Elizabeth Warren about “why now?” OK, Elizabeth Warren, I’ve bought a solution for you. The explanation why now’s as a result of Soleimani simply orchestrated an assault on our embassy, killed an American citizen. And we had excellent intel, from the CIA, from the DNI, from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Workers. They mentioned it was the perfect – among the greatest intel that ever seen that there was an imminent assault coming inside days. So Elizabeth Warren, that’s the reason.
MACCALLUM: So I used to be going to ask you the reply to that. So I am glad you introduced that up. When it comes to Jackie Speier – Congresswoman Speier. She means that the motion that the President took is extra the explanation for the tragic crash of this jet have been 176 individuals killed, extra so than then the Iranian missile that was – that the choice was made to ship that Iranian missile or maybe it was a system that was simply looking for something that was incoming.
CRENSHAW: That is such a disgusting, and deplorable accusation. I am reluctant to even handle it, however we’ve to, as a result of they hold saying it. Pete Buttigieg, a presidential candidate mentioned one thing comparable. The implication was comparable, that by some means that is our fault. So this this depends on a false premise that historical past begins with Donald Trump’s actions. And the Democrats typically imagine this. So they do not wish to imagine that Iran has this lengthy historical past of escalations. Proper? They wish to imagine that Trump began this combat. They do not wish to look again in historical past since 1979. They do not wish to look – because the JCPOA was signed, since they examined a number of nuclear succesful missiles, since they quadrupled funding to Hezbollah, since they greater than doubled their very own funding to the IRGC, since they instigated a number of civil wars, the listing goes on. And, once more, began – killed an American citizen, took down a U.S. drone, boarded U.S. Navy vessels and orchestrated an assault towards our embassy. They wish to ignore all that. And once we lastly react, once we lastly say sufficient is sufficient, we’re a superpower. We’re america of America. We won’t let this stand. The Democrats wring their palms and look guilty america. And when the Iranians make a really tragic mistake, and this can be very tragic. It truly is that they downed their very own airliner and we all know why it occurred. However guilty us for that’s so absurd, and admittedly immoral, they usually realize it. And God, I let you know what, Martha, I am completely sick of this. We should not be this manner. We must be unified. Each member of Congress must be calling at no cost Iran. The Iranian individuals are extra like us than you understand. The regime is so evil. However these individuals need freedom. 1,500 of them gave their lives combating that regime not too way back. They aren’t unified towards United States. They’re extra emboldened now towards their regime, and they are going to be much more emboldened if we might really act like the liberty loving folks that I do know we’re and supported them with ethical assist.
MACCALLUM: Congressman Dan Crenshaw, thanks very a lot for being right here tonight. Good to have you ever with us, sir.
CRENSHAW: Good to be with you, Martha.
MACCALLUM: Thanks. So additionally right here tonight to reply, Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Dingell from Michigan. She is Co-Chair of the Home Democratic Coverage and Communications Committee. Congresswoman Dingell, thanks very a lot for being right here tonight. Clearly, Dan Crenshaw, your colleague, very fired up about among the responses that we have seen out of your aspect of the aisle. What do you say to that?
REP. DEBBIE DINGELL (D-MI): To start with, I agree with him on one or two factors.
MACCALLUM: OK.
DINGELL: One, is that we must be united as a rustic. However there’s a response – there is a very – a Senator – famed Senator – Republican Senator from Michigan, that was an isolationist, however within the late 40s, labored with President Truman and mentioned, “politics ought to cease on the ocean’s edge.” However, I additionally assume that the President’s bought a duty to speak with the Congress, which isn’t his power. The – any escalation of army presence, the truth that we – there was dialogue of going to struggle, individuals have been fearful. Republicans and Democrats, Unbiased, People have been frightened about what the attainable penalties can be. This normal was a really evil man. He was accountable for the deaths of hundreds of harmless People and different individuals from world wide. However we do not – its – peace requires diplomacy. It occurs in a really larger image. President Bush, President Obama had checked out potential comparable actions and have been involved in regards to the penalties. So we realized at this time from – for the President speaking to somebody within the media that he was frightened about 4 different embassies. Why could not they’ve mentioned that within the congressional briefing? I feel it is actually necessary that we enhance communication. And I do imagine that any army escalation, any dialogue of struggle has to return to the Congress, and I’ll do something I can to stop struggle.
MACCALLUM: All proper. If the President says that he desires to stop struggle too. And he says that this motion was one which was required by an imminent menace, as you simply talked about. And he is elaborated, given a little bit bit extra info on that in an interview with Laura Ingraham that folks will hear later tonight the place he says, that in keeping with the intelligence, that there have been 4 embassies that have been doubtlessly the targets of all of this. So, you already know, while you take a look at that info, and likewise what he mentioned final night time on the rally that he did in Ohio, the place he felt that, if he had began going to members of Congress and saying, “Oh, look, we’ve this chance, ought to we meet? Ought to we discuss it later?” ought to we – he was afraid that it’d leak that the second which is taken into account to be a goal of alternative, as its termed by our intelligence companies, might be missed.
DINGELL: So I might say to him, that there was a precedent that you simply seek the advice of otherwise you temporary, the large – the eight, in order that the 4 leaders of the Home Intelligence and the Senate Intelligence Committee. I feel that he ought to have merely have finished that. We have to be certain that congressional management is included. And when individuals say that folks do not care, after I was dwelling Monday, I had the moms of women and men which are serving abroad scared to loss of life. I had younger individuals saying to me, is there going to be a draft? I left Michigan, going again to Washington very rattled at how frightened simply individuals have been. So we have to do not forget that everyone was involved and we must be involved. However we must be united as a result of that we’re People. We aren’t Republicans or Dems.
MACCALLUM: However we’re so – you already know, we’re so divided, and the President introduced up Adam Schiff by identify, and he would have been included in that small group that you simply’re speaking about. Do you imagine that Adam Schiff and the President’s relationship may, you already know, get previous the variations that they’ve had over impeachment? And do you imagine that Adam Schiff would have saved that info utterly confidential and would have allowed the President to take the motion that he felt was obligatory based mostly on the intelligence. Do you imagine that I imagine?
DINGELL: I imagine that the Republicans and Democrats serving within the clever – within the management positions within the Intelligence Committee, love this nation and understand how necessary it’s to deal with categorised info and would have finished so.
MACCALLUM: Thanks very a lot. Consultant Debbie Dingell, at all times a pleasure to have you ever with us tonight. Thanks very a lot.
DINGELL: Thanks.
MACCALLUM: We’ll see you quickly.
DINGELL: Good being with you.
MACCALLUM: You too. So she has been hailed for her bravery and talking out towards the Iranian regime. However now Democrat Ilhan Omar is coming after Masih Alinejad. She is right here solely to reply to Omar tonight.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MASIH ALINEJAD, IRANIAN ACTIVIST: Not solely President Trump, we wish the EU. We would like all of the politicians to hitch and, you already know, perceive that these are criminals. These are terrorists. And I wish to really say that–
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: Iranian journalists and activists, Masih Alinejad taking a whole lot of dangers talking out publicly towards the Iranian regime. Many have applauded her for her bravery, refusing to remain silent even after her brother was taken prisoner by the Revolutionary Guard. However one member of Congress appears to have doubts. Democrat Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, implying through Twitter, that Masih may very well be parroting Trump speaking factors for her personal monetary achieve. Masih Alinejad, writer of the “Wind in My Hair,” “My Battle for Freedom in Fashionable Iran,” joins me now solely to reply to this story and to Ilhan Omar. Masih, welcome again. Good to have you ever right here this night. We might prefer to current all sides of the tales right here. And your aspect of the story, I feel, is one that doesn’t get instructed as a lot as the opposite aspect. So why is she coming after you?
ALINEJAD: I strongly imagine that due to my article on “Washington Publish.” I’ve criticized Soleimani and I mentioned that many Iranians don’t see him as a hero. They see him as a warmonger, as a struggle legal. And that’s the reason I bought a whole lot of attacked by the Islamic lobbyist and he or she really shared the, one of many defamatory article towards me. However, Martha, what bothered me is that, I reached on the market loads. I despatched a message to Ilhan Omar, I wrote on Twitter. I wrote an article on “Washington Publish” and invited her to hitch us and present solidarity a number of time. As soon as when six ladies of White Wednesdays bought arrested simply due to protesting obligatory hijab and different time 29 ladies in Iran bought arrested in someday simply due to protesting obligatory hijab. And I requested Ilhan Omar to hitch us and present solidarity. She was silent. And one other time when my brother was taken hostage by the Revolutionary Guard, I reached out her, silence once more. And I – my mom was interrogated for 3 hours simply due to my actions, once more, she was silent. 1,500 individuals bought killed. She was silent. Proper now 176 individuals bought killed in suspicious state of affairs in Iran in a Ukrainian airplane. She’s silent.
MACCALLUM: So are you suggesting that she would not care in regards to the freedom that you simply’re combating for? That she sides with the regime? That she agrees with these crackdowns?
ALINEJAD: No, what I wish to say that’s this. She break – she broke her silence after I criticized the Islamic Republic, as a result of I’m the identical individual I criticized President Trump in “Washington Publish” about journey ban, which separated me from my son within the U.Okay. I have not seen my son for 2 years. Once I criticized President Trump, why did not assault me? Once I criticized President Trump when he mentioned that he will bomb cultural website, no person attacked me. However as quickly as I criticize the criminals of Islamic Republic, and I known as them warmongers and I known as them terrorists, I known as them non secular dictatorship, then the Islamic lobbyist right here, they assault us–
MACCALLUM: They’ve crossed the road.
ALINEJAD: –and Ilhan Omar. Sure.
MACCALLUM: So she says that you simply’re pulling the wool over the media’s eyes, that you’re with the VOA – The Voice of America. That you simply’re being paid by the federal government. What do you say to that?
ALINEJAD: Working as an impartial contractor for VOA Persian Service was not a secret, as a result of I am a freelancer. I work for various media broadcasting in London. I labored for a number of media broadcasting right here in America, together with VOA, which is an American establishment and he or she’s making an attempt to delegitimize an American establishment. I began my work when Obama was in energy. And I’ve to say my dream is to be in my very own nation. The federal government of Iran kicked out a whole lot of journalists, and plenty of journalists for BBC Persian, for Voice of America Persian, for radio free Persian for Manoto TV in London, for Iran Worldwide. That does not imply that we’re working for any type of authorities. I criticized bravely President Trump. I took ladies’s march within the New York Road. That day was the perfect day in my life, as a result of I believed that is the primary time that I’m protesting towards the President, no person kicked me out from my – the media that I work. I did not kicked out from Voice of America due to criticizing President Trump or Obama’s administration
MACCALLUM: However you agree with this coverage with one factor after which they got here after you with weapons blazing.
ALINEJAD: What I wish to say, please care about human rights. Human rights shouldn’t be misplaced within the political battles in America.
MACCALLUM: Masih Alinejad, thanks very a lot. Masih, good to see you.
ALINEJAD: Thanks a lot.
MACCALLUM: Thanks for being right here. Speaker Pelosi indicators her maintain out on impeachment is over. However did the delay present her and her celebration a political achieve in the long run? Byron York right here on his concept about how all of that is going to finish up beginning subsequent week. Byron is up subsequent.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACCALLUM: Home Speaker Nancy Pelosi arising brief in her battle with Senate Chief Mitch McConnell, lastly ending her holdout and saying plans to carry a vote subsequent week that will ship Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. This comes greater than three weeks after Democrats voted to question the President, emphasizing the urgency then of the matter.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): As a result of the Inspector Common has mentioned that that is of pressing concern, it has accelerated the tempo of how we go ahead. We do not have a alternative. We’ll both assist and defend the Structure of america or we cannot. Our democracy is what’s at stake. The President leaves us no alternative however to behave.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: No alternative, however to behave. They needed to transfer quick, quick, quick in getting that impeachment by means of. Becoming a member of me now’s Byron York, Chief Political Correspondent for “The Washington Examiner” and Fox Information Contributor. Byron, good night to you.
BYRON YORK, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Hello, Martha.
MACCALLUM: I feel this is without doubt one of the most puzzling issues about the way in which that this entire factor has been carried out. As a result of, we spoke to Democrats on this program, all of them mentioned, the President goes to do it once more. He’ll discuss to a different world chief, he will have an effect on the election for 2020. We have to impeach him straight away. We will not look forward to these authorized processes to play out for John Bolton or Mick Mulvaney or any of those witnesses. They can not wait. Then all the sudden it was like they’d nothing however time?
YORK: I feel lots of people are nonetheless making an attempt to determine what this entire factor was all about. The very fact is, Nancy Pelosi says that she is going to finish this holdout, feels like it is going to be subsequent week. In all probability after the Democratic debate on Tuesday night time, that she’ll finish the holdout with out getting what she mentioned she needed to get. And she or he wished assurances. She wished to know that the Senate trial shall be quote, “honest.” And she or he needed to understand how the trial would work earlier than she may appoint the managers and ship the articles over, and that simply did not occur. So what we have seen now that she has finished sided to present in on that is, is that there have been varied kind of declarations of victory by some Democrats who mentioned, effectively, this maintain – it prevented Mitch McConnell from summarily dismissing the entire impeachment, which was not going to occur anyway. It supplied time for extra proof to emerge. Now, the proof – there was new proof on this and it is come out by itself and would come out anyway. I feel possibly essentially the most persuasive one is that some Democrats imagine that Pelosi, by doing this, rattled the President, type of bought below his pores and skin, messed with him a little bit bit, and possibly she simply wished to do this.
MACCALLUM: So this is the President speaking to Laura Ingraham about this entire course of. Let’s play that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: And Mr. President, we simply realized that Nancy Pelosi has introduced, she’s sending Articles of Impeachment subsequent week to the Senate. What’s your response?
TRUMP: Properly, I feel it is ridiculous. She ought to have despatched them a very long time in the past. It simply – it belittles the method. Nancy Pelosi will go down as most likely the least profitable Speaker of the Home within the historical past of our nation. She has finished nothing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: It has been actual battle between these two Byron.
YORK: Properly, Pelosi did give the President some ammunition on this. I imply, clearly, as you identified, she and different Democrats have been saying this was a completely pressing matter. They have been doing their constitutional obligation. She was doing it prayerfully and with a heavy coronary heart. After which, wow, it appeared that she was taking part in video games with the timing on this. So you are going to hear extra about this from the President, even when she does lastly ship these articles over to the Senate and a trial begins. Republicans will say that this holdout, which did not appear to have an entire lot of function, present that Democrats – Home Democrats who began this entire factor weren’t critical about what they have been doing.
MACCALLUM: So the opposite situation is for the Senators who’re working like Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, have all kind of made some feedback in regards to the affect on their campaigns of all of this because it performs out over the subsequent few weeks. Elizabeth Warren mentioned that she’s spent three and a half hours on a selfie line in Iowa and that is how you must attain individuals, Byron. So does this hamper them?
YORK: It is a enormous deal for some Democrats. As a result of, keep in mind, Mitch McConnell has mentioned, when this trial begins, it’ll go six days per week, OK? Solely Sunday off. They’re working the remainder of the time, they usually’ll need to be within the Senate. And keep in mind, if the trial does begin subsequent week – the Clinton trial took 4, 5 – 6 weeks to complete. And if it takes that lengthy, and it simply may, that may go over the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire main. Two prime Democrats, Sanders and Warren are going to be sitting within the Senate.
MACCALLUM: That is proper. We’ll be in Des Moines they usually’ll be in Washington. Thanks very a lot, Byron.
YORK: Thanks, Martha.
MACCALLUM: Developing subsequent is YouTube. A few of President Trump’s frequent critics at MSNBC have taken a snipe at Republican Senator Lindsey Graham for daring to match the President’s handle to the nation on Iran to President Reagan’s “tear down this wall” speech. That is subsequent.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC HOST: One of many nice speeches within the second half of the 20th century, one of the crucial important, Ronald Reagan, telling Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the wall. I imply, does Lindsey really want main votes that badly?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The civilized world should ship a transparent and unified message to the Iranian regime. Your marketing campaign of terror, homicide, mayhem won’t be tolerated any longer. America is able to embrace peace with all who search it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: In order that was the president’s massive speech this week on Wednesday. Many mentioned it was forceful, others known as it the escalatory when it comes to Iran and it was broadly held by a whole lot of Republican lawmakers together with Senator Lindsey Graham.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): That is on par with tear down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev. That is resetting the connection between the world and Iran, not simply america. The president mentioned there may be an evil empire in Iran that is been on destroying the world, killing the individuals in Israel and coming after us and I’ll now not tolerate it. So, that is on par with Reagan’s tear down this wall speech.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: Among the people at Morning Joe didn’t recognize that comparability they usually got here again at Senator Graham like this. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCARBOROUGH: Lindsey, it is simply not value it, Lindsey. It is simply not value it.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI, MSNBC HOST: God.
SCARBOROUGH: No matter you are getting, it is simply not value it.
BRZEZINSKI: What’s he bought on you.
SCARBOROUGH: The Republican nomination in South Carolina? Not value shaming your self.
BRZEZINSKI: Additionally with us —
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Lindsey Graham mentioned the president’s speech was higher than Reagan’s tear down this wall speech. In order that’s the place Lindsey Graham was yesterday in defending the president.
SCARBOROUGH: One of many nice speeches within the second half of the 20th century, one of the crucial important, Ronald Reagan telling Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the wall. I imply, does Lindsey really want main votes that badly?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: So right here now to investigate, Fox Information contributor Lisa Boothe who shall be filling in as co-host on Fox and Buddies tomorrow morning. She bought on early morning. And Robert Zimmerman, a Democratic strategist and Democratic Nationwide Committee member. Lisa, let me begin with you. What’s your response?
LISA BOOTHE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Look, I feel it is necessary to recollect the context too that he would not have the perfect relationship with the Morning Joe. So, they do not actually just like the president. However, look, President Trump, and we’ll see how historical past grades the speech as effectively. However, look, President Trump subscribes to the identical doctrine of peace by means of power that Ronald Reagan did. And what’s attention-grabbing there was a David Brooks opinion piece within the New York Instances —
MACCALLUM: Sure.
BOOTHE: — speaking about the truth that President Trump has really use army power lower than another president than Jimmy Carter.
MACCALLUM: Carter.
BOOTHE: However that being mentioned, he’s not afraid to, you already know, flex that army muscle and ship a message. And we have seen it even when he first took workplace, it was April 17, 2017, keep in mind he despatched these 59 tomahawk missiles to Syria after Assad crosses pink line with chemical weapons, after which he additionally drop the mom of all bombs on ISIS in Afghanistan to ship a message after which he simply took out Soleimani in Iran. So, you already know, he is clearly despatched a message that he’s not messing round and he did it very early on all through his presidency and I feel that the world is listening they usually’ve bought the message.
MACCALLUM: Robert, what do you assume?
ROBERT ZIMMERMAN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I feel Joe Scarborough was reducing Lindsey Graham some slacking giving him a break right here. As a result of the fact is —
MACCALLUM: How so?
ZIMMERMAN: — Lindsey Graham only a couple years in the past was describing Donald Trump as a race baiting xenophobic non secular bigot, mentioned he was the ISIL, or the Islamic state man of the yr. He mentioned he was a humiliation to the individuals of South Carolina. Nobody eviscerated Donald Trump greater than Lindsey Graham. So why he would rapidly change right into a sycophantic method.
MACCALLUM: Abruptly. I imply, he is addressed that criticism loads. I imply, you could possibly look again at Ted Cruz as effectively who now —
(CROSSTALK)
ZIMMERMAN: That is proper.
MACCALLUM: I imply, individuals —
ZIMMERMAN: And also you marvel —
MACCALLUM: — individuals develop on individuals over time and clearly the president has not grown on the oldsters at Morning Joe clearly. However what I discover attention-grabbing is that there’s this kind of guttural response. Like simply even the suggestion that you could possibly evaluate the 2 presidents. And I am not saying — you already know, what I am saying is you must take a look at coverage. Proper?
ZIMMERMAN: Precisely.
MACCALLUM: So, the comparability and we really did an identical section the opposite night time on this present, it wasn’t evaluating it to the tear down this wall speech. It was simply saying, you already know, is there a comparability when it comes to the way in which their technique works?
ZIMMERMAN: Completely not.
MACCALLUM: That the president is America first, robust protection, bulked up the army. That was additionally Ronald Reagan, and pink strains.
BOOTHE: Proper.
MACCALLUM: In case you cross the pink line, there shall be penalties.
ZIMMERMAN: Sure. Inform that, together with, Martha —
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: I feel that is what he is doing.
ZIMMERMAN: Inform that to the Kurdish — inform that to the Kurds who President Trump abandoned and turned over northern Syria to Iran and to Russia on prime of which President Trump was attainable for hundreds of ISIS – –
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: So, you are upset in regards to the potential —
ZIMMERMAN: Let me end my level, please.
MACCALLUM: No, no. Let me ask you. You are upset in regards to the potential humanitarian aspect of that.
ZIMMERMAN: No, I am not.
MACCALLUM: You are not upset in regards to the potential humanitarian aspect to —
(CROSSTALK)
ZIMMERMAN: I am upset at — no.
MACCALLUM: — 4 embassies.
ZIMMERMAN: It is not about humanitarianism. Sure, I am involved about humanitarianism, however I am involved about Donald Trump being accountable for releasing hundreds of ISIS prisoners, lots of of ISIS troopers.
(CROSSTALK) BOOTHE: He destroyed ISIS as a result of he loosens the principles of engagement —
ZIMMERMAN: And now because of this, destroyed ISIS?
BOOTHE: — that President Obama denied.
ZIMMERMAN: Even our generals —
BOOTHE: This is why — you’ve got had a possibility to speak.
ZIMMERMAN: I feel so.
BOOTHE: This is additionally why you see Senator Graham and Republicans coming over to Donald Trump’s aspect. As a result of when he first took workplace or when he was working, they do not actually assume he was going to be on the staff. They did not assume he was going to comply with by means of with issues like conservative judges. They did not assume they’re going to see this kind of army coverage from him the place he does train power, he does flex that muscle. He isn’t messing —
(CROSSTALK)
ZIMMERMAN: Why on the contrary — let me make a degree right here, Lisa.
BOOTHE: I am not completed. After which additionally with Senator Graham.
ZIMMERMAN: You discuss in regards to the —
ZIMMERMAN: So now Senator Graham and different — you’ve got had a very long time to speak —
MACCALLUM: No, no, you’ve gotten too, Lisa.
BOOTHE: So, I will ask Senator Graham and different Republicans are coming round —
(CROSSTALK)
ZIMMERMAN: Lisa, no. A bunch of (Inaudible) made me right.
MACCALLUM: Let’s get Robert an opportunity to —
BOOTHE: — going have a extremely laborious time.
MACCALLUM: You’re keen on me each. Go forward.
ZIMMERMAN: You mentioned he destroyed ISIS. Our personal generals within the subject introduced they needed to dial again their technique of going after ISIS to take care of the Iran aggression after the Soleimani killing.
MACCALLUM: Does ISIS that main situation at this second?
ZIMMERMAN: ISIS is in fact a profoundly main situation. It is one of many main terrorist group —
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: However Soleimani shouldn’t be?
ZIMMERMAN: That is not the case. Nobody mentioned he wasn’t.
MACCALLUM: So, I ask you a query. Si Soleimani did he current a menace to Americans?
ZIMMERMAN: Sure, in fact he represented a menace. However the query is, by killing him, and he was a terrorist and he was mass assassin, no query. By killing him did he make America safer? Did he make the world — does Donald Trump make —
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: I feel the reply to that query stays to be seen.
ZIMMERMAN: And the reply proves to be fairly on the contrary. You are seeing already —
(CROSSTALK)
BOOTHE: And the actual fact you will not even handle the subject at hand —
ZIMMERMAN: Martha?
BOOTHE: — and also you’d gone to —
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: I’ve bought to interrupt. I am out of time. However I simply wish to say that you already know what, it is not the way you sound, whether or not or not you’re eloquent in your speech or whether or not or not you are efficient in your speech.
ZIMMERMAN: It is about your energy to —
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: The underside line — no, it is even larger than that. It is about your accomplishments in the long run, and that is what individuals look again at. So, the historical past will decide all of what we’re speaking about proper now and whether or not or not that comparability is an apt one. We’ll see. However making the comparability was definitely not one thing that —
(CROSSTALK)
ZIMMERMAN: All I can let you know is, Martha, I’ve seen — I’ve seen individuals in colts look extra genuine than Lindsey Graham did in these feedback.
BOOTHE: Have enjoyable in 2020, I’ll simply say.
MACCALLUM: Thanks, Lisa. Thanks, Robert.
ZIMMERMAN: Do not let —
MACCALLUM: Developing subsequent, a feminist flash mob erupts outdoors the courtroom the place shame film producer Harvey Weinstein is on trial for intercourse crimes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(CROWD CHANTING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MACCALLUM: So how does Weinstein’s feminine protection legal professional reply to these ladies? She joins me solely when The Story continues proper now.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACCALLUM: The New York legal trial towards Harvey Weinstein kicking off with no scarcity of drama this week. The jury’s choice course of is now underway. Greater than 80 ladies have spoken out and accuse the shame film mogul of sexual misconduct since bombshell allegations towards Weinstein have been first reported over two years in the past. This trial — this trial although offers particularly with costs that Weinstein raped a lady in 2013 and sexually assaulted one other in 2006. In moments we’ll be joined solely by Weinstein legal professional Donna Rotunno. However first, chief breaking information correspondent Hint Gallagher.
TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Martha, even those that anticipated excessive drama throughout this trial have been a bit shocked that the rapid-fire headlines generated in week one, which started with Harvey Weinstein coming into court docket hunched over a walker. Authorized analysts have been undecided if the machine was meant to realize sympathy for potential jurors, reduction from a foul again, or a little bit of each. It definitely didn’t goal the laborious strings of Decide James Burke who aggressively known as out Weinstein for utilizing his cellphone in court docket saying, quote, “is that this actually the way in which you wish to find yourself in jail for the remainder of your life by texting and violating a court docket order?” That prompted Weinstein’s protection staff to accuse the decide of bias and ask that he recuse himself. The decide refused saying, he isn’t biased and was solely making an attempt to scare Weinstein. Of the 240 potential jurors who confirmed up, at the least 100 have been dismissed for varied causes together with some who know Weinstein’s household, associates, and others who within the publish Me Too world mentioned they might not be neutral. Nonetheless, the decide hopes to have 12 jurors and 6 alternates by late subsequent week. However earlier than a single juror in New York had been questioned, occasions in Los Angeles upended Weinstein’s authorized staff when the L.A. district legal professional abruptly filed further costs, alleging that Weinstein raped one lady and sexually assaulted one other lady in separate incidents on consecutive days again in February of 2013. In New York, the disgraced film producer is on trial for allegedly raping a lady at a Manhattan lodge in 2013 and performing a forcible intercourse act on a manufacturing assistant in 2006. The allege sufferer from 2006 will reportedly testify. Opening statements are anticipated later this month and the trial itself may take just a few months. We noticed the primary delay this week when a prosecutor bought one thing in her eye and needed to make an emergency eye physician run. Lastly, the film mogul’s trial may also embrace film stars. Charlize Theron and Salma Hayek have been listed as attainable witnesses. Martha?
MACCALLUM: Hint, thanks. Becoming a member of me now solely Donna Rotunno is an legal professional for Harvey Weinstein. Donna, thanks very a lot for coming in tonight.
DONNA ROTUNNO, HARVEY WEINSTEIN’S ATTORNEY: Thanks.
MACCALLUM: I assume the primary query that a whole lot of ladies have for you is how are you going to defend Harvey Weinstein?
ROTUNNO: And my reply is how can I not while you do the work that I do, you rise up and also you defend individuals which are charged with crimes no matter race, gender, any bias, race, faith. And so, it would not make a distinction to me whether or not I am a lady and he is a person or vice versa.
MACCALLUM: So, you’ve gotten mentioned one thing to the impact of, you already know, you assume that it is going to be useful for him when you’re cross-examining that you’re a lady. Why?
ROTUNNO: I feel the, actually for me what makes it higher to be a lady within the state of affairs. In fact, my male, counterparts are simply as competent as I’m to do that work and simply as expert. However I feel the impact is admittedly on the listener. And I feel when the juror on this case, the trier impact appears at my interplay with a feminine, I feel they are going to view that dialog a little bit bit otherwise and I feel I would have the ability to ask some questions that do not appear as powerful if they arrive from a lady as in the event that they got here from a person.
MACCALLUM: Fascinating. And also you additionally mentioned one thing to the impact of, and proper me if I am phrasing you incorrectly, that you already know, in case you go right into a lodge room to speak to a person who’s your boss or somebody that you simply’re working with, you are basically making your self susceptible to this type of state of affairs. What do you imply by that?
ROTUNNO: Properly, I feel initially, in my circumstance and on this case, we’re speaking about lodge conferences that weren’t occurring at 10 or midday or one or two o’clock within the afternoon. These have been issues occurring after events, after being in bars, having drinks. This isn’t organising a gathering at three o’clock within the afternoon and going to them. So, my feedback are actually about what’s occurring on this case.
MACCALLUM: However do you assume these ladies, you already know, put themselves in that state of affairs after which for that motive, they’re guilty?
ROTUNNO: Properly, I’ve to speak about this in a normal sense as a result of the decide shouldn’t be permitting us to speak about particular witnesses on this case.
MACCALLUM: Proper.
ROTUNNO: However after I do assume {that a} lady makes a option to put herself in a circumstance, it doesn’t suggest that she deserves what occurs if she does one thing that is non-consensual. However we imagine in these circumstances they’re and consensual. So, in case you put your self in a state of affairs after which enter right into a consensual circumstance after which later change your thoughts, that is type of the place that —
(CROSSTALK).
MACCALLUM: So, has Harvey Weinstein satisfied you that he’s harmless of those two instances that you’re doing for him?
ROTUNNO: Completely. And it actually is not about what Harvey has to persuade me of, it is about what the proof has satisfied me of.
MACCALLUM: And if you weren’t satisfied would you defend — since you say, you already know, everybody deserves a protection. If you weren’t satisfied that he was harmless, would you continue to characterize him?
ROTUNNO: I completely would nonetheless characterize him as a result of as you mentioned, I do imagine everybody has a proper to a protection. However on this circumstance, I completely imagine that Harvey Weinstein shouldn’t be a rapist and I don’t imagine that he raped the ladies which are — the 2 ladies which are charging him —
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: So, you’re saying that these ladies walked into the room with him and they need to have identified or they have been, you already know, simply as — they have been complicit in these acts? As a result of, you already know, that is the dynamic they usually knew what they have been strolling into?
ROTUNNO: No. On this — in my case, in these instances, these ladies had relationship with Harvey that didn’t begin the night time that they walked right into a lodge room. So, there’s much more on this story than I feel meets the attention, and I feel that the jurors shall be shocked once they hear the proof, particularly given all of the media protection the case has not.
MACCALLUM: So, you already know, you discuss lodge rooms and a whole lot of the — and also you say you possibly can communicate typically, so that is what I am doing proper now.
ROTUNNO: Sure.
MACCALLUM: What about workplace conditions? What about in among the instances that we have all examine the place individuals stroll into an workplace and abruptly, you already know, somebody is making an attempt to kiss them or somebody is doing much more than that in among the instances that we have heard about. Is a lady additionally placing herself in a susceptible state of affairs by permitting the door to shut in that state of affairs?
ROTUNNO: I feel these are completely different circumstances and I feel that while you work for somebody, you are in a unique state of affairs than when you’ve got a relationship with somebody. That is completely different than working for them. And I feel that it is also completely different while you wish to work for somebody otherwise you need one thing, they will give you. So, this isn’t a state of affairs at the least within the instances that I am dealing with the place they have been working in an workplace with Mr. Weinstein. These are ladies who had a relationship with Mr. Weinstein and —
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: So, you are saying it was transactional on their half?
ROTUNNO: Right.
MACCALLUM: You realize, lots of people say imagine all ladies. Do you imagine any ladies?
ROTUNNO: I imagine ladies who I imagine the information and proof assist their instances however I feel it is very harmful to imagine all ladies with out wanting on the again story, the remainder of the proof. And I feel what this case goes to indicate us is that girls made claims to the media on this case, however they instructed solely a part of the story. So we’ll have the ability to confront them with the story that they instructed reside.
MACCALLUM: Sure.
ROTUNNO: After which the opposite information that they determined to go away out which I feel shall be very telling.
MACCALLUM: Properly, I feel it is going be fascinating to observe all of this play out. And Donna Rotunno, thanks very a lot for coming in. I hope you may come again as we —
ROTUNNO: Completely.
MACCALLUM: — watch this case unfold.
ROTUNNO: Completely.
MACCALLUM: Thanks, Donna.
ROTUNNO: Thanks a lot.
MACCALLUM: So, a report from London on Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s breakup with the Royal Palace. This one is heating up, people, when The Story continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MACCALLUM: New fallout tonight after the dramatic Megxit by the duke and duchess of Sussex. Buckingham Palace confirming that Meghan Markle returned to Canada whereas Prince Harry stayed again for dialogue with the queen. That shall be snug — who reportedly instructed them not to do that, to not go public with this announcement simply but. Right here now, Neil Sean, U.Okay. media correspondent. He is coated the royal household for years and years. Neil, good to see you tonight.
NEIL SEAN, U.Okay. MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: Thanks.
MACCALLUM: So, phrase is that Prince Charles has kind of recommended that they might get minimize off financially. They’ve advertising alternatives maybe that they’re investigating right here. Who’s guilty? Is that this Meghan’s thought or Harry’s thought? What are you listening to?
SEAN: Properly, sure. Martha, what a large number initially.
MACCALLUM: Sure.
SEAN: Apparently, although, it is a joint thought. However what the sensation over right here in England is solely this, you already know, Harry is a little bit of a sap, you already know, he is being performed for all he is value. And consequently, in case you look at this time, Meghan has gone again to Canada to see the child, clearly take care of the kid. Nevertheless, leaving Harry right here to face the music and face the music he’ll due to course, her majesty, the queen now desires to see him in individual alongside Prince Charles. So, I feel if she had any advantage and any thought of how this could be performed out throughout, you already know, the U.Okay. taxpaying public that fund the British royal household —
MACCALLUM: Sure.
SEAN: — she ought to have caught it out and stood subsequent to him.
MACCALLUM: I imply, they have not been married that lengthy. I imply, how about may it probably be they are not even, you already know, used to this entire course of but? So, boy, that is going to be fairly an image that anyone goes to wish to snap within the British tabloids when he is driving to Buckingham Palace to have this dialog. How critical is the queen about this? What you’re listening to about her response?
SEAN: Properly, clearly, you already know, Martha, she’s disillusioned. Just because, you already know, when you consider how she welcomed Meghan into the royal household, you already know, she let Meghan keep at Sandringham at Christmas. That was the primary, you already know, by no means been finished earlier than.
(CROSSTALK)
MACCALLUM: Earlier than they have been married. Sure.
SEAN: Sure, exactly. After which, you already know, we noticed making an attempt to combine whether or not on the royal prepare — she’s finished every little thing I feel otherwise to what she did beforehand to try to be sure that there was a welcoming into the royal household. I feel her majesty herself actually is admittedly disillusioned by the way in which that is performed out, however extra disillusioned, probably I might imagine, in Prince Harry. She’s at all times {that a} very soft-spoken. She’s at all times identified that he’s extra susceptible than William. And while you look additionally at Catherine and William, you already know, that is the explanation why they fell out final yr, that is the true ongoing feud. This has been constructing and constructing. Apparently, although, William did kind of begin this off.
MACCALLUM: Sure.
SEAN: As a result of previous to the marriage he saved saying to Harry, are you certain you are doing the fitting factor, is that this what you wish to do?
MACCALLUM: Sure.
SEAN: So, it has been constructing awhile and that is what exploded the feud, actually.
MACCALLUM: We’ll be following it together with your assist. Neil Sean, at all times good to see you, sir. Thanks very a lot.
SEAN: A pleasure. Thanks.
MACCALLUM: So that’s The Story of Friday, January 10th. However as at all times, The Story goes on. That one goes to go on for a while. We’ll see you again right here on Monday at 7. Have an important weekend, everyone.
Content material and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox Information Community, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2020 ASC Providers II Media, LLC. All supplies herein are protected by United States copyright legislation and will not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, revealed or broadcast with out the prior written permission of ASC Providers II Media, LLC. Chances are you’ll not alter or take away any trademark, copyright or different discover from copies of the content material.
The post Rep. Debbie Dingell rejects Trump’s suggestion that Democrats would have leaked Soleimani strike to the media appeared first on Down The Middle News.
source https://downthemiddlenews.com/rep-debbie-dingell-rejects-trumps-suggestion-that-democrats-would-have-leaked-soleimani-strike-to-the-media/
No comments:
Post a Comment